onewheeldave

The type of people I described are clearly 'militant atheists' though- 'Anti-theist' is a useful term, for those of us who know what it means, but as I also endeavour to communicate with the general public, I also feel 'militant atheist' is useful, as the term is in more common usage. I have no issue with the term 'militant believer' being applied to believers who are aggressive or try to force their beliefs on others either: in short, I have no problem with applying the term to anyone who is being 'militant', whether atheist, believer, man or goat

Actually, i find the term both meaningful and useful- it serves to distinguish the standard atheist i.e. one who simply lacks belief in God, from the (increasingly common, post-Dawkins) type of atheist who attacks religious believers, not through simple rational discussion, but by means of insults and inflammatory rhetoric.

I'd say anyone who behaves in a 'militant' fashion, whether atheist or christian/muslim/other believers would be militant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant

I think mafya was pretty clear Originally Posted by mafya I call them militant atheists, not all of them though just the ones who resort to insulting religion/religious beliefs. I think atheists who just stick to debating with facts and reason usually escape the 'militant' tag- whereas those who taunt, ridicule and aggressively insult those who disagree with them, tend to get labelled as militant.

No it's not. I can guarantee you that Dawkins and most of the Dawkins influenced atheists would not disagree, as, whenever they get involved in these discussions, they are quite adament that 'atheism' is merely 'an absense of belief' (in a God). Many times non-atheists argue against them by saying that, for example, atheists believe god doesn't exist, or, attribute any number of other beliefs to atheists- their stock reply, time and again, is to assert that 'atheism' is not a positive belief, but, rather, an absence of belief.

Tax credits vary- often the lines are usable, but, when it gets close to renewal time, they are notoriously bad. Try ringing a jobcenter and see how good their phone system is

Utter Rubbish! Benefit 'phonelines' are a universal joke- in general they are impossible to use to actually get through to someone. That's a complete fob-off, and, if any one doubts it- ring a benefits number and see how long it takes to get any help.

And utterly useless The OPs looking for actual practical advice and is doubtless fully aware (as is everyone) of the above, true, but useless, fact. Again, that's not advice, it's a dig a the OP. And, if the OP is like many of the people who decide to face up to an ongoing weight issue and do something about it, the very last thing they should rely on is 'willpower'. If they possessed sufficient willpower to control their weight/food intake, they would have done so already. What they need is an effective approach that does not rest on possessing an iron will. This is much more like it. The OP needs a way of eating and exercising that is sustainable for the rest of their life- it must not rely in any way on possessing large amounts of 'willpower' and be enjoyable enough that the OP actually wants to continue with it. Carbs (bread potatoes highly processed carbs) should definitly be cut back to a minimum, not just because of their calorie content, but because it is easy to consume them in excessive quantities- they are habit-forming. And, that cut back level of carbs needs to be long term. Exercise should be something enjoyable, and, when it doubt, do less, rather than more- the key to sustaining any kind of regular exercise is being motivated to doing it, and not forcing yourself to stick so rigidly to a plan, that you start to hate it.

Lacks many of the benefits of a bicycle though. And, though it may be 'cheap as chips', it's not as cheap as buying and running a bicycle. Plus, statistically, rsik of death and serious injury is much lower on a bike.

I definitly think you should make an official complaint http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/complaints/Pages/NHScomplaints.aspx as your wife was very lucky- if her heart atack had not been so mild, she could well have died. If the surgery is allowed to continue with that level of ineptitude, others will die, assuming someone hasn't already. It could well be that the surgery management are not aware of their receptionists negligence- if so you'd be doing them a big favour. Chest pains should mean being seen asap- it does not take advanced medical training/knowledge to assess that one. In complaining, you would not be 'rocking the boat', you'd be performing a public service for your community.

I can relate to that- as I've got older, inevitably I've seen people die. Sadly, smokers tend not to die well: being unable to sleep properly due to constantly waking up gasping for breathe is deeply unpleasant, and, when it comes to smokers, that seems to be very common in the last few months of their lives. Obviously, being a non or ex-smoker does not guarantee either living longer, or escaping such a unpleasant end to life- but, clearly, it adjusts the odds considerably in your favour. IMO, smokings a bit of a tragic joke now- the facts are in, there are no good reasons to smoke, long term regular smokers, whatever they happen to believe about why they smoke, in reality, do so because they have become addicted to nicotine. As we've seen on this thread, untruths and self-deception seem to go hand-in-hand with smoking, just as they do with any other drug habit. Of course, your Dad (and mine too, who also died from an illness which most likely was caused by his lifelong smoking addiction), grew up in different times, when the facts about smoking where not known (or in the period where they were being suppressed), so, they became addicted when smoking was considered to be just another lifestyle choice. Which is sad- they really didn't have the same opportunity to make a reasoned choice to avoid this awful drug addiction as people do today.

He's caught you out claiming that you smoke 60 a day, and, less than 10 a day. The appropriate thing to do is to either explain the discrepency, or, admit you've not being telling the truth. As opposed to simply name calling, which is against board rules.

Ah- so you do accept it happened? Previously you seemed to be saying it was some kind of conspiraxcy theory There's nothing for me to get over, IMO, as the kind of blatent cigarette advertising and open payments to media stars to smoke on screen, has now been made illegal. Plus of course, we now live in times where most of the thinking public see smokers, not as 'cool, but as drug addicts/victims/fools- so many film stars wouldn't be that interested in promoting it anyway.

No need for insults- keep it up and I'll point the moderators in your direction. Why don't we stick to the subject we're discussing, which was nicotine and it's well established marketing via the film industry- not smack: in this context, 'smack' would be a strawman- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Do you want to point out which bit was rubbish? It's no conspiracy- it's well documented fact that this happened, and, if it hadn't been made illegal, would still be happening.

It's a pretty meaningless fact in this context- a lot of substances which are actually beneficial when taken normally, are also deadly if injected in high concentrations. Smoking is deadly, but it's not the nicotine that causes all the physical damage, but the other chemicals in cigarettes. Nicotine of course, is the root of the addiction that keeps the smoker smoking, but, in terms of physical harm, it's not high on the list. That's the point of ecigs- they're designed to deliver nicotine safely.

It was different times back then- brainwashing people into smoking via film stars being paid to smoke on screen was rife. So impressionable teens going to the flicks did see it as 'cool', and, those film stars were partly responsible for the hundreds of thousands who took up smoking and died as a result. Then again, most of those films stars who pushed the drug got their karmic consequences when they also died slow horrible deaths from various smoking induced cancers. That was then though, this is now; and, in this day and age when smoking is widely recognised as a drug habit, pure and simple, most people don't see smokers as 'cool'- they tend to see then as victims, or as fools.

Or do what I do- face the fact that Royal Mail are a total joke, who are utterly incapable of shifting an item from one place to another with any reasonable degree of competency and with no understanding of customer service. Use them only as a last resort, and, wherever possible, get packages done via next day delivery with a proper courier- it may cost extra, but generally it's worth it if it saves having to queue for an hour or more to get your hands on your own property. And this is in no way a critisism of the actual postmen/women, who, on the whole, do a very good job under the circumstances.

I'd be interested in knowing more details about what 'fine for most of the hills in Sheffield' means. What about the steep hills like Rutland rd, Crookesmoor rd etc? I've done a fair bit of riding round sheffield on a single speed and hills like that are really tough on one gear- doable, and, great if fitness is the priority, but, I had to conclude that, for general commuting, a single speed is not a viable option in Sheffield. I've never had experience of the 3-speed internal hub gear systems- so, could you give some thoughts on it's suitability for general commuting in sheffield, bearing in mind that, once out of the flat city center area, hills like the ones mentioned above are unavoidable. In the past I have come close to getting a brompton, as, it clearly has the best fold and smallest folded size of the main folding bikes, but went with a dahon due to it's cheaper price and 6 gear deraillers- but one factor was also doubts about the suitability of the 3 geared Brompton for Sheffield. So it'd be good to know if the 3 speed Brompton can handle Sheffields tougher hills adequately.

Seems quite commendable of them, as the Dahons are cheaper than the Brompton, and they tend to have a more suitable selection of gears (derailers) then the Brompton where Sheffield (hilly) is concerned.

Then again, though 'nothing' might not be possible, equally, it might be possible. Maybe nothing once was the case and maybe our 'something' did come from it? The fact that nothing has never been observed in no way means it never existed.

Anyone considering castle should be aware that they use long term contracts, which, if you sign them, will tie you into paying regardless of whether you train or not. There have been many dissatisfied customers and several threads on this board claiming use of aggressive selling tactics, for example- http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=67614 Bear in mind that, in sheffield, there are many reputable martial arts clubs who don't insist on contracts and are happy for their students to pay per session- they are mentioned in the above thread.

A fair and intelligent reply- I do hope that things have improved. I left several years ago as it had gone badly downhill- I was prett annoyed at the time as it's a pain finding a new dentists. I just hope that, if the practice is on the up again, that staff do take seriously the many complaints mentioned on this, and, several other SF threads- if they do, then best of luck to the practice.

She didn't actually mention that she wanted a 'feminine' looking tattoo- just cos she'e a female doesn't mean she necessarily doesn't want the kind of tattoo that's suitable for covering black lettering. I've seen sone pretty hot chicks with dense black artwork of the kind that most wouldn't call 'feminine'. I'd suggest she at least check out all available options, one of which is laser removal, others may well include talking to a tattooist who specialises in cover-ups. Not the old style 'stick a big black panther over it', but, the newer approach of working with the client to come up with a design that is a piece of quality artwork in it's own right, that just happens to fit over the old tattoo. Here's a very easy google to start off with- https://www.google.com/search?q=tattoos+%22cover+ups%22&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=zw5JT-C7Hcnt8QPF4Y2bDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CFMQ_AUoAQ&biw=1002&bih=547&sei=1Q5JT8b_MYL78QP059iVDg But, remember, it's not just a case of turning up at the cheapest local studio- for a good cover-up up you need to do a lot of research to find a tattooist who does good cover-ups. Maybe, laser removal can be part of that process, then again, the tattooist who specialises in good cover-ups is going to be a good person to get the opinion of, he/she may well come up with a design that does not require laser removal. Another good source of ideas is to look through some modern tattoo magazines- WHS in town usually has a good selection: a lot of people who have an old tatto they don't really like, never did any research in the first place and have no real idea of what's possible in tattooing- there's no better way to sort out your own mind about the kind of tattoos you want, than to spend a lot of time looking at tattoos, whether on other people (tattoo conventions), in tattoo magazines or on the net.

That depends on the person doesn't it? Some people like big black tattoos. Besides which, there are other options given the artistic skills of many tattoo artists these days, such as a cover up tattoo that isn't big and black.